We didn't have time in class today to do justice to the eight pages from Phillis Wheatley's Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral that we discussed. There is more to say, so feel free to say it in response to this thread.
Some issues to consider:
We have not "read" a lot of images in this course, but the portrait is an interesting one. What interpretive observations can you make about it?
What strikes you as particularly interesting about the "To the Public" attestation?
Do the three documents here sound like they were all written by the same person? Why or why not?
What would you have like to say in class today but did not get the opportunity to?
Deadline: open (for now). Posts before midnight Saturday (4/2) count toward Week 10; after that it's Week 11.
(For those of you who have NOT read any of Wheatley's poetry, here is a hypertext of one of her most widely anthologized poems (one of the very few that refers to her enslavement.)
11 comments:
The portrait of Phillis Wheatley caught my attention when I first glanced through the handout in class. I wondered if the woman in the picture was actually her. Having not seen previous pictures of Wheatley, I thought perhaps the editors chose to photograph a more appealing woman for the book of poetry. They decided to include a picture to help sell books and reinforce the fact that a woman of color wrote the poems. Therefore, the picture needed to reflect an innocent woman instead of an unkempt slave which would turn off potential readers who would not take the woman’s talent seriously. I believe that Wheatley is the woman in the picture. However, I think her appearance was cleaned up in order for her to look presentable. The woman in the picture looks the opposite of a Barbarian. The cap on her head is probably hiding her lack of groomed hair because slaves were not allowed to maintain healthy hygiene habits. She is modestly clothed in a simple dress which was probably a lot nicer than most female slaves’ attire. The conservative dress reveals little skin which could be hiding bruises from her master. Wheatley appears to be a more fortunate slave, and I assume she was given more privileges once her talent was discovered and she became valuable to her master. I think it is interesting how Wheatley is not making eye contact with the camera. She was still a slave, and looking directly at the camera would have conveyed confidence which was probably not a preferable trait for slaves to possess. She is portrayed as obedient and intelligent with her hand resting on her chin like she is in deep thought. Also, she is almost showing no emotion. She does not look particularly pleased to be photographed nor does she look irritated.
It struck me not only that she was a female, but an Aferican American female. This struck me becuase Aferican Americans usually did not have the oppertunity to recieve an education, but the fact that she was a female as well made it even more impressive that she was able to get her work published. I think that it sounds like they were written by the same person because the langauge and the way the peices are written are the same.
I thought Wheatley's adoption of European style and custom was quite notable. Of course, this would have been largely involuntary, but from her poem there also appears to be some suggestion that she internalised and assented to these values. For example, the picture shows her dressed in European clothing and the dedication reads much the same as many other dedications from European authors. She also considers it "mercy" that brought her 'from [her] Pagan land". It would make sense though, that her internalisation of the values of her master's society would be part of what motivated her to learn and, given her age, it was probably a very reasonable response.
The image is an interesting compromise, similar to what we were discussing towards the end of Friday's section regarding challenging the prejudices of readers without doing so overtly. The portrait of Wheatley allows for people to view the unlikely author of the poetry collection, but she is portrayed in such a docile way that it can not shock or offend the sensibilities of the broad midsection of literate society at the time.
What surprised me about the picture was the fact that we discussed how the inclusion of pictures would raise the value of a book. I wonder if the picture is actually of Phillis Wheatley or a generic portrait because as a slave, one wouldn't think she had extra time or money to sit around for a portrait. (But then we talked about how this novel is the only instance where this picture is seen, which leads me to believe the picture is actually hers. But that only complicates the slave-master relationship she must have. How does class play into this?)
Wheatley's leisure time is also brought up in the first line of the Preface: "The following poems were written originally for the amusement of the author, as they were the products of her leisure moments." Since when does a slave have leisure time for moments of self-pleasure? Again, it makes me question the rigidity of the class system and the slave-master relationship of the time.
Great comments and observations here! Since it seems to be a point of curiosity, let me add a little more info about Wheatley's enslavement than the text itself implies. Most of what we know about Wheatley's early life comes from an account written in the C19 by a descendant of her mistress, Susannah Wheatley. It depicts the relationship between the two women in very warm and sentimental terms--describing Phillis as being more like a daughter to Susannah than a servant--but obviously such accounts need to be read skeptically.
Phillis Wheatley was captured in Africa and sold in Boston when she was about seven. (The Wheatley family estimated her age from the loss of her baby teeth.) As the relative describes the situation, Susannah had gone down to the wharves looking for a slave to buy for housework--but ended up coming home with Phillis because her sickly and weak appearance excited her compassion. Susannah named her purchase "Phillis," after the slave ship that had transported her.
Slavery in the northeastern states tended to be less physically onerous than slavery in the southern states, simply because vast southern-style plantations didn't exist, and there was less demand for enslaved field labor. Most slaves in the northeast in the latter half of the eighteenth century performed the labor of household servants though they of course had none of the perquisites of free white laborers. The existing account claims that Phillis was particularly privileged: relieved of most household tasks and able to devote most of her time to preserving her (chronically poor) health, becoming educated, and writing poetry.
A number of you have astutely pointed out how these documents reflect the tensions inherent in her situation. The novelty of a "barbarous" enslaved African is partly what helps to sell the book; but at the same time the poetry will only be of value or interest if it corresponds to existing assumptions about what poetry should be like. So the front matter takes pains to stress that this unusual slave has the same accomplishments that people had come to expect of poetry-writing women (in fact, her access to learning, particularly the study of Latin, put her far ahead of many upper-class white female teenagers of the time).
Then there is also a strange soft-pedaling of her enslavement. What's that about?
Other thoughts?
The comment that stuck with me from class was the idea that all of the formatting that went into the publication of the book was to arouse curiosity in an effort to promote purchasing. It would make sense, the concept of a black woman writing poetry would appeal to both sides of the slavery debate. The abolitionists would purchase it as proof that they are capable of thought and knowledge, and those supporting slavery would purchase it so that they could mock it. The introductions, to me, vary between doubt and praise. It seems to disengage her from the "barbarians" as if she wasn't a black woman. Although they present praise of how she was able to read “the most difficult Parts of the Sacred Writings” and learn the “Latin Tongue,” the introduction also suggests flaws in her writings – “her Attempts in Poetry”, “Disadvantages”, “Imperfections”.
It seems that a lot of people are questioning whether that image of Phyllis really is Phyllis. I guess I, too, wonder about that. In the picture, she was wearing "good" clothes, it seems. Although, I'm not too familiar with the fashion from the 1800s in the colonies, I would think that a slave would not be dressed as a white person. The picture could either 1) be dressing up Phyllis in civilized clothes so as to show the public that she has indeed evolved from being a "barbarian" to a very cultured negro who can become adept in the English language, thus piquing potential buyers' interest in her work or b) maybe just show how Phyllis really lived. I mean, Ms. Wilcox did say that Master Wheatley did take measures to buy her books and supplies so that she could write poetry. So why not buy her a nice dress to go along with her educated upbringing? Maybe her owner was actually proud of her? No one else had a slave that could write poems.
I remember on those 8 pages that on the Introduction page, at the very end, the word 'public' is spelled with just a c. But on the next page, it says "To the PUBLICK" along with the signatures and such. Is there a significant difference in spelling of the word public? Like did it emphasize anything or mean something different?
It seems that a lot of people are questioning whether that image of Phyllis really is Phyllis. I guess I, too, wonder about that. In the picture, she was wearing "good" clothes, it seems. Although, I'm not too familiar with the fashion from the 1800s in the colonies, I would think that a slave would not be dressed as a white person. The picture could either 1) be dressing up Phyllis in civilized clothes so as to show the public that she has indeed evolved from being a "barbarian" to a very cultured negro who can become adept in the English language, thus piquing potential buyers' interest in her work or b) maybe just show how Phyllis really lived. I mean, Ms. Wilcox did say that Master Wheatley did take measures to buy her books and supplies so that she could write poetry. So why not buy her a nice dress to go along with her educated upbringing? Maybe her owner was actually proud of her? No one else had a slave that could write poems.
I remember on those 8 pages that on the Introduction page, at the very end, the word 'public' is spelled with just a c. But on the next page, it says "To the PUBLICK" along with the signatures and such. Is there a significant difference in spelling of the word public? Like did it emphasize anything or mean something different?
One thing that I was not able to mention in class was the question in regards to the amount of signatures or people promoting the work of Wheatley. I wanted to mention in the beginning of the pages, in the preface, the speaker mentions that one should not consider what type of person she is but the craft that her work displays. The people pushing her information out wants it to be read to display her skill. Now if they wanted to use her works to simply show that African Americans were not just barbarians or savages or whether it was to just gain currency, Im not sure. Whether the work is actually her, I believe it to e. I feel that if she was able to gain access to some type of educational background which enabled her to learn then she would eventually be able to produce poems of that nature.
I think we should have focused on her education as an important aspect of the poems she may have written. During that time African Americans were not educated in schools(or at least most were not). It would be interesting to see how she was able to write anything, let alone quality poetry.
This problem would also maybe open up the discussion on who actually wrote/published her work. If it ends up being that she in fact did write the poetry, then the question still stands that who would publish her poems?
Post a Comment